Some face coverings get you banned from entering the Australian Parliament building in Canberra. Some don’t.
Sergio Redegalli is the originator of the famous”Say No to Burqas” mural.
“Faceless in Canberra: Three men on a mission,” by Nick Folkes, November 4, 2014:
On Monday 27th October, three men Sergio Redegalli, wearing a KKK outfit, Nick Folkes, wearing a niqab, and Victor Waterson, wearing a motorbike helmet, pushed the boundaries by testing the new federal parliamentary rules regarding individuals wearing full-face coverings entering Parliament House. The new parliamentary security rules state that anyone wearing a full-face covering must temporarily remove any head garment to prove their identity, but once cleared the wearer is able to continue wearing the full-face covering inside the parliament building.
The trio made the journey to Parliament House in Canberra to prove a few points regarding full-face coverings especially the main point to show that inequality exists. The inequality and special privilege that exist is the right given to Muslim women to wear a full-face burqa or niqab into the parliament building while those wearing other types of full-face coverings (including a motorbike helmet or KKK outfit) are denied.
Security officials met the demonstrators outside the building, who advised the men that the helmet and the KKK hood were not allowed inside Parliament. Sergio Redegalli removed his KKK hood to reveal a niqab underneath. He said, “So I guess this is the time to say that I’m now allowed into Parliament House am I?” the response was “no.” Sergio further added, “Bit of a loophole, eh?”
Once inside the parliament building, all three were forced to remove their facial coverings to reveal their identities. The Parliamentary security officials told the Faceless members that they could not wear their face coverings in parliament because it was deemed ‘protest paraphernalia.’ And men were not entitled to wear Islamic face coverings in Parliament, thereby again highlighting the double standards and implicit sexist attitudes.
Over the past few weeks, debate has been raging in parliament and also across the nation regarding full-face coverings. The issue of full-face coverings has divided the nation with the vast majority of citizens supporting a parliamentary ban on the wearing of full-face coverings in parliament while our weak and indecisive parliamentarians, including Prime Minister Tony Abbott, remained undecided.
PM Tony Abbott even remarked that he found the garment to be “confronting” and wished that Muslim women did not wear the garment but he did not have enough conviction to uphold women’s rights or national security concerns in making the right decision. No doubt Abbott and his political cronies are too scared of demanding Muslims and their victimhood narrative and also those that support this ridiculous position including the gravy train multicultural industry.
South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi had asked Speaker of the House, Bronwyn Bishop and President Stephen Parry to consider ‘banning the religious headwear being worn in Parliament.’ On Monday, the day of the stunt Senator Bernardi said Faceless’ stunt proved “just how ridiculous it is to allow anyone wearing an identity concealing garment into Parliament House.”
Nationals MP George Christensen also publicly backed a ban on burqas in Parliament, and tweeted in response to Monday’s stunt, “Where is the left wing outrage at these guys being told to remove their facial coverings at Parliament House?”
Indeed, there was outrage from Wendy Francis, Queensland director of The Australian Christian Lobby who described the stunt as “so hurtful” and said Muslim women she knew “wanted a peaceful Australia every bit as much as my Christian friends.” Frivolous Francis went further saying, “To identify the KKK with a Muslim woman is extremely confronting and hurtful.”
Misguided do-gooders like Wendy Francis are part of the problem as she could not separate her own emotions from the hard hitting facts of full-face Islamic coverings and the risk to national security. Apologetic activists like Wendy should be making a stand for their Muslim ‘sisters’ by campaigning against Muslim men who are increasingly forcing their women and young girls to wear burqas and niqabs in public. Also, peace and public security will not be achieved when unidentified persons pose a real danger to parliament and national security dressed in concealed garments.
The aim of the stunt was not intended to label Muslim women as ‘extreme’ but to highlight the inequality of full-face coverings, the risk to national security and attack on women’s rights. In this exercise, the only ‘extreme’ is the political ideology of Islam for forcing the full-face garment upon so many Muslim women and girls.
Jacqui Lambie has been a beacon of light in the dark corridors of Canberra. Jacqui has been courageous for speaking her mind, linking Islam to ‘terrorism’ and calling the burqa a risk to national security. Last week, she released a draft bill, where people wearing full face coverings in public could be fined $3,400 and parents would be sent to prison if they were found guilty of forcing teenager girls to wear Islamic headdress. Regrettably, Jacqui’s private members bill to ban the wearing of the burqa in public was not supported by her cowardice parliamentarians.
It seems the Australian public has definitely turned a corner on the burqa debate with overwhelming public support for the banning of the burqa in public. The print press, radios and tv morning programs went into a frenzy opening discussion on this important issue with Sergio and Nick giving radio interviews to 2GB and 2UE radio stations and the trio appearing on Sunrise and also Studio 10. Even the hosts and panelists of the both programs seemed to display reservations about full-face Islamic coverings.
Sunrise program:
https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/25364546/burqa-ban-protest/
Studio 10 program:
Faceless is a cultural and political action group that will continue to push the boundaries to create controversy and debate on public wearing of the burqa and niqab. Faceless’ members are patriotic Australians that are champions of women’s rights and therefore are campaigning for a complete public embargo on the wearing of the burqa and niqab in Australia.
Faceless members made their debut in Sydney on Monday, 2nd April 2012. Members of the public were left speechless upon seeing a contingent of faceless people wearing burqas made their way through the busy streets of the city. The aim of the stunt was to create debate on the burqa and highlight the security, criminal and cultural concerns associated with the burqa.
Faceless members were calling on then NSW Liberal party leader Barry O’Farrell to support a bill calling for the banning of Islamic head and body veils in NSW. Outside NSW Parliament House two aggressive Lebanese Muslim males verbally and physically abused Faceless members and attacked an older Faceless supporter.
Last week’s stunt highlighted the inequality regarding face coverings in Australia as both the KKK outfit and motorbike helmet were deemed a security risk by parliamentary security while the niqab was not. This position held by parliament shows the inequality and special privilege that exists for Muslim women as no other group is able to have the same privilege.
Points proven, Mission accomplished!
Join the discussion: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Faceless/354106381426073
References:
KKK burqa bikie men attempt to enter parliament
Protestors wear KKK outfit to oppose burqas
Men wearing KKK outfit niqab try to enter parliament house
Liberal multicultural affairs minister calls burqa ban silly
Bradamante says
These guys are both clever and brave. More power to them!
IQ al Rassooli says
For those who do NOT Know:
No where in all of Muhammad’s Quran is there mention of Hijab, Niqab or Burka as a covering for a woman in any way shape or form
These items were introduced in ‘Islam’ by the male clerics to control the females of Islam in Body, Spirit & intellect and to reduce them to the level of DOMESTIC animals even more so than what Muhammad’s Quran mandated
Since these items do NOT exist in the so called’religion’ of Islam, then banning them is NOT against their core belief system but most assuredly against their Bull Crap misogynist traditions
No court in Australia (or anywhere else) can prove my statements untrue
Throw these mendacious Muslim rascals OUT!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Mirren10 says
”For those who do NOT Know:
No where in all of Muhammad’s Quran is there mention of Hijab, Niqab or Burka as a covering for a woman in any way shape or form.”
Actually, there is.
Quran states: Say to the believing men (first) that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And (then) say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (24:30-31)
It is also in Bukhari, where Aisha tells the ‘believing women’ to *cover their faces*. I can’t post the quote, because I don’t know how to do two at once, but you can google Bukhari – niqab.
The point is, clearly , not whether or not niqab is mandated in islam, but the fact that in the civilised West, **no-one** should be allowed to conceal their identity in the public sphere. Covering one’s face is a **disguise**, which is a safety risk, since it allows would be criminals to enter public buildings unrecognised.
Which is why, if I tried to enter my bank wearing a balaclava, I would be prevented, and arrested. The niqab is exactly the same, as Sergio Redegalli is illustrating.
Mirren10 says
From the hadith:
”Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba:
‘Aisha used to say: “When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces.”
►Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282: (Sahih Bukhari)
Brian Hoff says
It seem that you never read the Koran at all.
exsgtbrown says
Some insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use. In fact, verse 24:60 says that the veil is only optional for unmarried women who are too old to have children, and even then the freedom to uncover the head is discouraged.
Jay Boo says
Recently in UK or Ireland:
Christian bakery told they must make a Sesame Street theme Bert and Ernie “support gay marriage” cake despite their religious objections.
Does anyone know of a Muslim bakery that would make this cake?
Salah says
“And men were not entitled to wear Islamic face coverings in Parliament…”
In Islam, men are entitled to wear make up and…women clothing!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2010/03/transvestite-muhammad-mahomet-le.html
BW022 says
Great protest. Well thought out, peaceful, effective, and clearly shows the double-standard and loop holes in the law.
However, they could make it even more effective next time…
Have some women go with them. See if the security forces allow the females to wear the niqab. If so, ask if it is ok for the female to give her niqab to one of her male friends and allow him to wear it?
Next, try having some women wearing visible crosses. See if the security folks allow the cross bearing niqab wearing women in or ask them what religion they are?
Next, maybe a cross dresser or transsexual… What if the man wears makeup and asks to be referred to as Elizabeth? Are they going to inspect his privates?
Brian Hoff says
The muslim women have the legal right to cover her hair and face. These homosexual men could be arrest for inviteing hated against Islam.
john spielman says
Brian, in the west every one in public must have their faces exposed to do business to buy and sell to drive a car etc. If a woman insists on being covered then she admits to following a strict form of conservative islam. Thus she is NOT ALLOWED by her religion to out of her house without a male relative to accompany her , she may not drive nor go to school, infact she MUST STAY AT HOME and be subservient to her spouse or father ! So there is no problem after all as ALL COVERED WOMEN MUST BE HOUSE BOUND!
somehistory says
Are you claiming that in Australia it is against the law for a homosexual man to wear a burka, or niqab? When was this law written?
And the *legal right* for muslim to wear them is what is being discussed.
This arresting of homosexuals for wearing a niqab sounds like a crock made up by you. A cracked crock idea you would like to see written.
BTW: how would anyone know it was a man if he was concealed in a burka unless he was made to undress?
And one last thought to strain you brian, er brain, where in the article does it say any of these men are homosexual or that they were *inviteing hated (sic)against islam*?
Jax Tolmen says
Thankfully, we here in Australia do not yet have laws that prohibit critiquing fascist ideologies. We do have discrimination laws, but they only apply to the workplace and similar circumstances. If I want to tell people that Islam is a farce of a religion and should be eradicated, then I do not fear arrest.
Also, why do you leap to the conclusion that they are homosexuals? And if they were, what the fudge would that have to do with any of this.
You’re an idiot, your beliefs and words are stupid and you should feel bad. Please continue to post though, your comments are always good for a laugh.
Hoekom Jy My Haat says
Too bad you lot didn’t stick with your “Keep Australia White” campaign of the 70s. Look what’s become of you!
Mirren10 says
”The muslim women have the legal right to cover her hair and face.”
Hair, yes; face, no.
How do you know these men are homosexual, ‘Brian’ ? And what difference would it make if they were ?
”These homosexual men could be arrest for inviteing hated against Islam”
islam invites hatred by what it is.
pumbar says
As the Arctic Monkeys sang;
“Brian… top marks for not tryin'”
PRCS says
It is possible that Brian was being facetious.
pumbar says
Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Mirren10 says
Brian is the old ‘defenderofislam’.
I don’think he has the faintest idea what faceitousness is. He’s just a plank. 🙂
wallyUK says
Once it is acknowledged that Islam is a profoundly political belef system, it becomes obvious, in Britain, that we are dealing with the same problem presented by Oswald Mosely’s blackshirts in the 1930’s.
“The Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed to control extremist political movements in the 1930s such as the British Union of Fascists (BUF).
Largely the work of Home Office civil servant Frank Newsam, the Act banned the wearing of political uniforms in any public place or public meeting. (The first conviction under the Act was of William Henry Wood, by Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 27 January 1937). (wiki)
dumbledoresarmy says
Yup.
Both the male and the female mohammedan gang uniform is, well, a **gang uniform**. More than that: a military uniform, and a hostile political statement – a threat. The costume and badge of the army of Islam, of the mohammedan mob or empire of Islam that intends to rule planet earth and drag everybody down into the bottomless pit that is the Desolation of Mohammed. It’s an aggressive statement of intent, like a member of the SS or the Gestapo in full uniform swaggering down the street in Occupied Paris or Occupied Poland.
Its cultural meaning is light years away from, say, the significance of the nun’s or monk’s habit, the priest’s cassock and the Christian cross pendant, the Buddhist monk’s saffron robe, the Hindu’s bindi or thread, or the various types of Jewish religious garb and insignia.
PRCS says
Because she failed to do her homework, the Sunrise program’s woman presenter erroneously asserted–as is so common– that the burqa is “a part of their faith”.
Such an easily refutable statement would typically go unchallenged.
That she was corrected–on live television–was noteworthy.
Leon says
See a few young ladies in niqabs in my area with their young children. And I hate seeing it! As I said to a friend, after we’d spotted a young lady in niqab, it is not a religious requirement for a niqab – if so, then ALL Muslim women would be wearing it.
Lizabee says
KKK has nothing to do with Christianity and the KKK outfit has nothing to do Christian teachings or culture. The Burqa, on the other hand, IS a symbol of the the Muslim religious culture just like a traditional nun’s habit (now pretty much extinct) is/was part of the Catholic culture. Nuns however, don’t cover their face. The KKK ideology is identical to Muslim ideology in that both are based on supremacist hatred of particular groups that involves slavery, violation of civil rights and murder. Does that clear things up for all the airhead dhimmis?
Crusader says
How about wearing the Nazi swastika in public to compare with the burka?
Now —that’s a good ideological comparison.
The Exorcist revisted and Islam.
Hoekom Jy My Haat says
Too bad you lot didn’t stay with your “Keep Australia White” campaign of the 70s. See where your multiculturalism has got you. These vile moslems consider your wives, daughters and mothers uncovered plates of meat, for the cat’s to get into. Unless they are covered head to toe, they are considered by the moslems to be nothing better than prostitutes. Remember the Sydney gang rapes?